Whether you’re strategizing your chess moves, exploring high-scoring options in Scrabble, or crafting your investment plan in Monopoly, board games are an excellent avenue for enhancing your cognitive skills. Engaging in these games demands a variety of mental faculties, including problem-solving, critical thinking, decision making, memory retention, and concentration, while also providing a valuable platform for face-to-face social interaction.
Given their cognitive and social advantages, it’s no wonder that playing board games can support brain health as you age.
Board games are essential for brain development – Photo credit: Getty Images
Specific games, such as chess, have been extensively studied for their ability to strengthen mental skills. A 2025 review of neuroimaging studies comparing expert and novice chess players revealed that seasoned players exhibit higher brain activity and connectivity in regions related to visual processing, spatial awareness, and decision-making.
For enthusiasts of tabletop role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons, there’s encouraging news as well. A 2024 study from University College Cork found that these games offer escapism, creative expression, and social support, significantly enhancing players’ mental health.
The board game industry is flourishing, with countless options available and dedicated cafes and bars emerging where you can enjoy them. If you’re searching for a delightful way to spend a rainy afternoon, immersing yourself in a good game is definitely a worthwhile option.
This article addresses the question, “Are board games good for the brain?” posed via email by Ray Townsend.
I don’t engage with video game adaptations of traditional board games. Why is this the case? The appeal of video games lies in their speed, visual appeal, and reduced reliance on other players compared to classic games that use dice or cards. However, after my recent family board game night was hindered by scheduling conflicts and familial tensions, I chose to test out some board games on my iPhone that Saturday evening.
I began with Uno, a cherished family favorite. We still play with the Simpsons Uno set we purchased years ago—a simple, comforting card game. The iOS version differs significantly, introducing a three-minute time limit per round, which adds a layer of urgency beyond just strategy. While I appreciate this twist, I find myself missing the lively family interactions (and the fierce shifts in loyalty) of the in-person version. It just doesn’t compare to sending silly faces to MoshOnion933. Believe me, I tried.
Next, I jumped into Yahtzee With Buddies. It’s one of the few games I enjoy that my family doesn’t share my enthusiasm for. I appreciated the fresh spin that highlighted multipliers for specific scoring categories, and I enjoyed unlocking the various dice and treasures. Yet, I soon realized these were merely gateways to microtransactions, complete with a pop-up urging me to buy more rolls just as I was 16 seconds away from achieving Yahtzee. The final straw was when scratch cards started appearing, a sneaky form of gambling reminiscent of the old FIFA packs.
Fever Dream…Monopoly GO. Photo: Scopely/Hasbro
Monopoly Go is even more frustrating. The overwhelming number of beeps and chaotic graphics gave me a headache. Land on a space, and you’ll find yourself assaulting other players’ properties with wrecking balls, only for them to defend with characters like Baby Yoda. It’s like a surreal Monopoly experience, resembling the kind of game you might be forced to endure by a malevolent antagonist.
Opting for the “Triple” option allows you to roll three dice, with the reward being tripled. This, however, leads to faster depletion and microtransaction traps, akin to a slot machine experience. You can even set it to autoplay and passively observe the distracting graphics, much like being trapped inside a retro washing machine. It hardly feels like a game; rather, you’re a landmark in a colorful reset where you spend real money to watch an artificial score fluctuate. Only someone who thinks Mrs. Brown’s Boys is hilarious would consider this fun.
I expected The Game of Life to be similar, but I was pleasantly surprised!
The familiar choices are back: Career or college? Married or single? One child or four? Costs have increased, and you now need to pay $20,000 upon marriage. We just acquired a pasta maker! Tax is only assessed if you land on certain squares, meaning you’ll only pay if you have bad luck. Ah, the life of a billionaire! I wish I could find the original game’s spinner, the second-best piece of equipment in board gaming history (nothing can top the Pop-O-Matic, akin to bubble wrap).
Des re…The Game of Life. Photo: Anadolu/Getty Images
In my subsequent game, I prioritized my career over having children and ended up significantly wealthier. This isn’t merely a game; it’s a highly detailed simulation of life. I’ve avoided playing games because it feels disheartening to see how simple success can be in their version of life. And being in my 50s, I crave something with more complexity.
Then, I remembered chess—the board game where computers excel. I downloaded Zach Gage’s Really Bad Chess to explore if someone could really reinvent this classic by 2025.
I loved his “Pocket Run Pool,” which brilliantly combines ball-hitting with exciting new features. His chess adapts the classic game with a clever premise: random piece placements and numbers. This results in matches where, at times, you may have four queens facing off against three knights and a pawn, liberating chess from its conventional openings and predictability.
We achieve the extraordinary with a version of chess that demands deeper thought. More. As you progress, the difficulty ramps up with AI opponents controlling prime pieces. It’s a delightful experience.
Perhaps the less social facets of board games make computers more beneficial to us. The only individuals who converse while playing chess are the villains from films. I wonder if a microtransaction Chess Go! will surface—there’s likely some entity trying to ruin everything out there.
wReflecting on childhood in the 1990s stirs up feelings of nostalgia. We roamed far and wide without supervision, rode our bikes, crafted burrows, and swam in streams. Post-school hours were spent crafting and playing board games; while the internet existed, my parents encouraged me to use a landline phone. Media was tangible—cassettes, CDs, VHS tapes—and often enjoyed together as a family. The memory of going to the video store to select a movie still thrills me.
These feelings are common, especially when you have a child of your own, and social media algorithms tap into this nostalgia. Three years post the birth of my son and starting a parenting column for The Guardian, I noticed my interest in “parenting in the 90s.” This phenomenon seems to have gained traction this year, with former 90s kids pondering how to raise their own children. It appears that significant technological advancements have resulted in valuable losses. But is it feasible to reclaim what was lost? And how have we adapted parenting since then?
“Absolutely, it’s a total pause,” states Justin Fromm, a father and content creator based in Las Vegas. We’ve created a very successful replica video store in one of the rooms in his house for his daughter. “The whole family would pile into the car, head to the video store, and wander the aisles, deciding what to watch,” he reminisces about his childhood. “It was exhilarating and filled with possibilities. Scrolling online doesn’t compare.” There’s something special about physically going somewhere to select a movie together, the long-awaited anticipation of finally watching it. It felt like a true event. “Everyone remembers the ritual of choosing a movie together in a blue and yellow themed store, the carpet, the excitement.”
Although not everyone has the space or budget like Justin, the motivations behind his choices resonate widely. “As a parent, I consistently shield my kids from content I don’t deem healthy for their minds,” he explains. “We lean towards older films and shows, primarily due to their healthier pacing. They are not overly mixed or stimulating.” His daughters adore classic films like *Harriet the Spy* and *Dennis the Menace*, with *George of the Jungle* being the current favorite. Likewise, I found myself gravitating toward 90s media thanks to my son, with *The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh* capturing my attention. The contrast between the narrative pace of 1997’s *Teletubbies* and modern programming is striking.
Justin’s acclaimed video room represents a conscious effort to define screen time, aligning with the 90s parenting ethos. “Back then, people criticized TV for damaging brains, but it had its place in the living room,” he notes. “Now, media pursues us relentlessly, everywhere. In my household, media consumption happens at specific times and places.”
Composite: Getty Images
As concerns mount regarding the impact of screen time, alongside various campaigns advocating for childhoods free from smartphones, it’s understandable that many of us are reflecting on the era just before everything changed. Some parents, such as schools, have introduced landlines for children, while a parent group in South Portland, USA, allows kids to call each other, thereby forming a “retro bubble” against screens. Browsing through 90s parenting-themed reels on Instagram (ironic, I know), I stumbled upon a video depicting adults and children participating in a backyard water battle, all organized via landlines, of course, as they left their smartphones in bowls atop a high cupboard. Back when we weren’t glued to screens, our summers were often spent engaged in extensive neighborhood water fights, with mothers signaling the action when they appeared with buckets or garden hoses.
Jess Russell strongly values the importance of play. A former primary educator and special needs coordinator, Jess stays at home with her two children, aged one and three, and actively promotes learning through play on her Instagram account @playideasforlittles. “I grew up in a rural setting, always outdoors. My mother was a stay-at-home parent, and we engaged in numerous arts and crafts,” she shares, striving to replicate this experience for her children. They spend ample time playing in the garden, engage in board games like *Hungry Hungry Hippos*, and watch TV as a family.
Part of Jess’s motivation for her current lifestyle stems from her disillusionment with educational directions that steer away from play and towards outcome-oriented systems. She feels fortunate to be at home with her children, a choice more attainable in the 90s when single incomes could usually support housing expenses. I share similar sentiments about working part-time. The nostalgia for the 90s reflects the struggles modern parents face trying to balance work and family time, all while fostering a playful environment.
It boils down to more than just screens; it encompasses connections, family moments, and shared time. “Parenting in the 90s exemplified ‘slow’ parenting,” Jess observes, explaining that days weren’t packed with scheduled activities. Boredom, as emphasized by Melanie Murphy, a mother of two from Dublin, is vital. Instagram: “Your Nostalgic Millennial Mom’s Friend”. “Those extended, unstructured periods were a surprise gift. I desire that for my children. I don’t want an overly scheduled life for them.”
Composite: Getty Images
When her two- and four-year-olds experience boredom, their imaginations are activated, Melanie recounts. “They construct forts, turn floors into lava, and convert tables into dragon nests. We don old clothes and delve into dirt in search of bugs. They prepare meals and tidy the house… We groove to music and have dance parties. We watch my childhood DVDs on the projector. Sure, structured activities and adult-led plans create chaos, but as long as the kids are content, I’m fine with it.”
Certainly, kids from the 90s would chuckle at this. One humorous video highlights the absurdities of 90s childhood, featuring a kid dashing after his mother in a changing room and giving himself a haircut in the kitchen. When I ask a friend if her parenting style resembles that of the 90s or if she knows someone whose does, she ponders: “Hmm, like sleep training, lots of TV, and burnt pancakes.”
She’s spot on. Yet, each advocate of 90s parenting I encounter acknowledges the allure of rose-colored glasses. I ask Melanie what elements of the 90s she’d prefer to leave behind. “Physical discipline. You were taught to ‘toughen up’ emotionally rather than to process feelings holistically,” she says, pointing to practices like sleep training and the “naughty step.” The negatives included “secondhand smoke everywhere, mental health neglect… The gender stereotypes were overwhelming, alongside diet culture and ultra-processed food norms.” Her mother counted calories with Weight Watchers, and even back then, Melanie found herself counteracting with junk food. Best left in the past. She also emphasizes that not every family enjoys movie nights together; for some, media consumption lacks supervision, and children might encounter highly inappropriate or traumatic content.
At times, the carefree approach of 90s parenting can veer towards negligence. Yet, I cherish how “free-range” my childhood was. Justin shares similar sentiments. “My parents weren’t always aware of my whereabouts, and that was okay,” he recounts. “I got hurt sometimes; my kids occasionally break their bones. We learned to avoid the actions leading to those breaks.” (Indeed, I broke my bones too.)
Composite: Getty Images
“That type of risk-taking is crucial; it’s how kids learn to assess situations. We’ve been scrutinizing our childhoods so much lately that we need to reclaim those teachings,” he remarks. He believes there’s been an overcorrection, and people “hunger for something freer, something resembling non-fear-driven parenting.”
In essence, we are in pursuit of balance. “We are more informed now—about emotions, neurodiversity, health, and nutrition—which undeniably has its merits,” adds Melanie. “It’s not a time machine I yearn for, but a beautiful fusion of the relaxed spirit of 90s parenting blended with today’s emotional intelligence.”
I thought it would be insightful to converse with someone who actually parented in the 90s, so Jess connected me with her mother, Lynn. “I savored those moments with my children, cherishing every hour spent outdoors or with friends,” she reminisces about the long days. She emphasizes that stores closed on Sundays, a simple joy allowing family time. “Many parents today yearn for that simplicity in family bonding.”
Composite: Getty Images
“We lived in a modest two-bedroom home and managed just fine… Now, it seems people must meet a certain living standard. That pressure is something I truly regret for them.” When I ask Lynn if there’s anything she admires about today’s parenting, she struggles to pinpoint anything specific. “I genuinely respect the balance modern moms seem to achieve. I never had that. It was undeniably straightforward.”
Initially hesitant about the concept of 90s parenting, Jessica admits it felt somewhat sentimental and was likely fueled by millennial nostalgia on social media. Yet, if that’s true, why write this? Is it sadness stemming from the fatigue of juggling work and parenting (especially with her son’s struggles to sleep)? Even reminiscing about the 1996 classic *Space Jam* evokes deep emotions tied to selecting a VHS at the local store. I can’t shake this longing for simpler times, perhaps indicating a need for more fun in my life. I’m thinking it might be time for a water fight. Who’s ready?
Parent-Child Relations: Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett’s Baby Raising Published by September Publishing (£18.99). Get support from The Guardian and reserve your copy Guardianbookshop.com . Shipping charges may apply.
The former OpenAI board member, Helen Toner, commented that the US administration’s focus on academic research and its approach to international students is “a tremendous gift” to China in the competition surrounding artificial intelligence.
Toner, who serves as the Strategic Director of Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET), joined OpenAI’s board in 2021 following a career dedicated to analyzing AI and the dynamics between the US and China.
At 33 years old, Toner—an alumna of the University of Melbourne—was part of the board for two years until she left alongside founder Sam Altman in 2023. There were concerns regarding Altman’s communication consistency and the board’s confidence in his leadership.
In the following tumultuous month, Altman was initially dismissed and then reinstated, while three board members, including Toner, were sidelined. Their situation has become the subject of an upcoming film, and along with the film’s director Luca Guadagnino, they have reportedly met in person.
According to Time Magazine, Toner was recognized as one of the top 100 most influential figures in AI for 2024, a testament to her advocacy for AI regulation by policymakers worldwide.
At CSET, Toner leads a team of 60 researchers focusing on AI applications for white papers aimed at briefing policymakers, particularly in military, labor, biosecurity, and cybersecurity contexts.
“My primary focus is on the intersections of AI, safety and security issues, the Chinese AI landscape, and what is termed frontier AI,” explained Toner.
Toner expressed concern that the US may fall behind China in the AI race. Although US export controls on chips complicate China’s access to competitive computing power, the country is making substantial strides in AI, illustrated by the surprising success of its generative AI model, Deepseek, earlier this year.
Toner criticized the Trump administration’s research cuts and international student bans as being “gifts” to China in the AI competition with the US.
“It’s undeniably a significant gift for China. The current US approach to attacking scientific research and the talents of foreigners—a considerable part of the US workforce comprises immigrants, many from China—is a boon for them in this contest,” she remarked.
The AI boom has raised alarms about job security, with concerns that AI may replace many human jobs. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, which developed the generative AI model Claude, recently stated that AI could eliminate 50% of entry-level white-collar jobs, potentially leading to a 20% unemployment rate over the next five years.
Though Toner acknowledged Amodei’s predictions, she noted, “While I often find his assertions directionally correct, they tend to sound overly aggressive in timelines and figures,” but she agreed that disruptions in the job market are already occurring.
“The current capabilities of [language model-based AI] are best suited for small, manageable tasks rather than long-term projects that require human oversight,” she advised.
Experts suggest that organizations heavily invested in AI are feeling pressure to demonstrate returns on their investments. Toner remarked that while practical applications of AI can yield considerable value, it remains unclear which business models or players will successfully unlock that value.
The integration of AI services could range from enhancing existing applications, such as a phone keyboard that transcribes voices, to standalone chatbots, but she remarked that it’s still uncertain what role AI will ultimately play.
Toner noted that the push for profitability presents risks that could overshadow the advancement race in AI.
“This reflects how companies are weighed down by the need to balance between rapid product releases and the thorough testing needed to implement additional safety measures that could also complicate user experience,” she elaborated.
“Such companies must make these trade-offs while feeling the pressure to accelerate as much as possible.”
Toner voiced her concerns regarding the concept of a “progressive power” of AI, which suggests gradual integration of AI systems into various societal and governmental facets; acknowledging it may be too late to reevaluate this path.
She expressed optimism regarding AI’s potential to enhance scientific research, drug discovery, and autonomous driving solutions like Waymo, which could significantly reduce road fatalities.
“With AI, the goal isn’t perfection; it’s to exceed existing alternatives. In the automotive sector, the alternative involves thousands of annual deaths. If we can improve that scenario, it’s remarkable; countless lives could be saved,” she articulated.
Toner humorously mentioned that a friend suggested potential actresses to portray her in the film.
“One suggestion was a stunningly talented actress,” she said. “Anyone they choose will definitely be a worthy pick.”
In March, following a significant decline in Tesla’s stock price, Elon Musk informed employees that he was “committed to inventory.”
Robin Denholm, the chair of Tesla’s board, appears to have disregarded this advice. According to an analysis by Securities Filing’s New York Times, she has profited $180 million from selling Tesla shares she obtained through her board role within the last six months.
With this, her total earnings from Tesla stock sales exceed $530 million since she became chair in late 2018.
These stock transactions have raised questions regarding Denholm’s confidence in Tesla’s future. Her recent sales, executed under a pre-established trading plan created last summer, coincided with Musk’s demanding involvement in the Trump administration. Consequently, Tesla’s car sales have experienced a decline as Musk’s political endeavors alienated some customers. The company’s profits for the first quarter of 2025 plummeted to their lowest level in four years.
Denholm has the right to purchase stocks through stock options granted by Tesla from 2014 to 2020, which have dramatically increased in value. For instance, last week, she acquired over 112,000 shares at $24.73 each and sold them the same day for upwards of $270.
“To discard her inventory does not send a message that this is a board chair invested in the company’s future,” stated New York City Director Bradlander, overseeing the city’s five public pension funds, which held more than 3 million Tesla shares valued at around $817 million as of March.
A spokesperson for Denholm asserted that Tesla compensates its executives in a manner “fully aligned with shareholder interests.”
“The appreciation of Tesla’s director’s choices reflects the company’s superiority over its industry peers, yielding distinctive returns for shareholders who own the company,” he added.
Stock options, which have historically constituted the bulk of Tesla’s compensation, are valuable only if the company’s stock price appreciates. Those exercising options to acquire shares may choose to sell or retain their new shares.
Denholm has sold over 1.4 million Tesla shares while retaining 85,000 shares and approximately 49,000 stock options. Comparative Methods, a consulting firm, has scrutinized the compensation strategy. Her most recent stock transactions occurred under a plan initiated in July shortly after Musk endorsed Donald J. Trump for president.
Regulatory frameworks allow executives and insiders to engage in such transactions without disclosing numerous plan specifics, including their motivations or the terms for stock disposal. They also possess considerable latitude to rescind plans.
Denholm, an experienced technology executive from Australia, typically maintains a low profile and avoids public commentary on Tesla or Musk. She joined the Tesla Commission in 2014 and became chair after Musk stepped down in 2018 as part of an SEC settlement.
Criticism from investors, activists, and Delaware judges has arisen regarding her and other board members for not serving as a check on Musk’s influence, with assertions that the Tesla director has failed to keep him focused on the company.
“Musk operates as if there were no board oversight,” wrote Delaware Chancery Court Prime Minister Catalyne St. J. McCormick last year, noting the case was valued at approximately $56 billion when ruling in favor of shareholders contesting Musk’s 2018 compensation package. Judge McCormick characterized Denholm’s oversight of Musk as “Rakkadichal.”
Tesla’s appeal against the decision led to the annulment of Musk’s pay package, with Denholm actively disputing Judge McCormick’s allegations.
In the trial concerning Musk’s compensation, Denholm characterized her earnings from the Tesla board as “life-changing.” Compensation at Tesla was also scrutinized in another lawsuit in which Denholm and fellow board members reached a settlement in 2023.
Musk, who has been a part-time CEO of Tesla for years, has assumed even more responsibilities over time, regularly engaging with Washington and orchestrating President Trump’s strategies to reduce governmental spending and oppose federal employees.
Recently, Musk stated he would reduce his Washington presence by one or two days each week. Nevertheless, his focus will remain divided as he manages several other enterprises, including SpaceX and X, the social media platform he owns.
The first transaction based on Denholm’s recent trading plan occurred in November, shortly after the presidential election, as Tesla’s stock began to rise. In December, the stock reached a new high, and she continued to sell until early May, even as prices declined amid consumer backlash against Musk’s political activities.
Following recent losses, the stock has decreased by approximately 34% from its peak.
Musk acknowledged Tesla’s challenges during a March meeting with employees. “If you read the news, it feels like you understand.”
He reiterated his advice to employees not to sell their shares, asserting that Tesla will evolve into the world’s most valuable company through the realization of self-driving taxis and advanced robotic technologies. “The future is exceptionally promising,” he stated.
Denholm’s sales have significantly outpaced those of other Tesla board members.
In 2023, she and other current and former board members agreed to a settlement for shareholder lawsuits concerning their compensation, collectively agreeing to return $735 million. They denied any wrongdoing. Additionally, on May 1, a stock option valued at over $130 million was canceled to fulfill Denholm’s obligations, according to securities filings.
Following the lawsuit in June 2021, the board resolved to relinquish the new stock grants.
During the same period, Denholm also made more from selling company shares than other corporate committee leaders. The Times assessed stock sales made by chairs of the most valuable companies in the U.S., distinct from the executives of those companies, like Denholm.
The next non-executive chair who benefited significantly from selling shares in his oversight capacity is Stephen Hemsley of UnitedHealth Group. Since November 2018, Hemsley has profited over $100 million from UnitedHealth shares, all accrued during his tenure as CEO of the healthcare firm.
UnitedHealth reviewed the findings but refrained from commenting. On Tuesday, the company announced its decision to appoint Hemsley as its new Chief Executive while also retaining the chair position.
Sales carried out by executives and directors often predict subpar performance from the companies they lead, according to various academic studies.
Leaders like Denholm possess access to confidential information and a profound understanding of how broader economic factors can impact corporate performance. Nejat Seyhun, a finance professor at the University of Michigan, observes that this can render their transactions particularly lucrative.
Insiders “establish plans when they hold such information,” remarked Professor Seyhun. “If circumstances shift, they can easily rescind those plans.”
The chairman of Tesla’s board has refuted claims regarding his search for a successor to CEO Elon Musk, who has been preoccupied with President Trump while the company’s sales and profits have notably declined.
Robin Denholm, who has chaired the board for over six years, stated on X that the Wall Street Journal report was “completely unfounded.”
“Elon Musk is Tesla’s CEO, and the board is highly confident in our ability to pursue our exciting growth initiatives,” Denholm announced on a Tesla account linked to Musk’s social media platform, X.
The Wall Street Journal reported late Wednesday that approximately a month ago, the Tesla board reached out to an executive search firm for assistance in finding a potential alternative to Musk, citing “individuals with relevant expertise.”
Following a 71% drop in quarterly profit reported last week, Musk has committed to dedicating more time to Tesla and less to Washington. He mentioned he spends one or two days weekly on administrative tasks.
Musk’s absence from Tesla, as he focuses on efforts to reduce government spending under Trump, has stirred frustration among investors. His association with right-wing movements in Europe has sparked protests at Tesla dealerships and contributed to decreasing sales, as electric vehicle buyers generally lean more liberal or centrist.
Recent reports indicated that Tesla’s revenue fell 9% in the first quarter of this year, amounting to $19.3 billion.
Automakers are losing market share in the US, China, and Europe, as competitors like BYD, General Motors, Volkswagen, and others roll out numerous electric models. Analysts have criticized Tesla for not broadening its offerings beyond the two main vehicles.
The Model Y SUVs and Model 3 sedans account for a substantial portion of Tesla’s sales. Musk indicated that Tesla’s latest vehicle, the CyberTruck, is not yet available for sale.
Tesla has refuted claims that its board sought to replace Elon Musk as CEO in response to backlash over his right-wing views and decreasing vehicle sales.
Robin Denholm, chair of the electric vehicle manufacturer’s board, stated on Tesla’s social media account on X:
“This is completely inaccurate (and this was conveyed to the media prior to the release of the report). Elon Musk is Tesla’s CEO, and the board has full confidence in its ability to continue executing our ambitious growth plans.”
Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Photo: Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters
Following a report from the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, “board members” are said to have contacted a headhunter to explore potential successors about a month ago.
This reported action has allowed Donald Trump to influence federal spending as the informal head of the “Doctors of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), amidst rising tensions at Tesla due to Musk’s extensive involvement in Washington.
It remains unclear whether these board members acted collectively or individually in seeking to identify a new CEO. The Tesla Committee consists of eight members, including Elon Musk, his brother Kimbal Musk, and James Murdoch, son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch.
Tesla has faced significant backlash over Musk’s recent political activities, including his public support for actions against Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party ahead of the national elections in February. Sales of electric vehicles have dropped in some major markets, accompanied by political protests at various showrooms.
Recently, the company reported a 71% decrease in profits for the first quarter of this year, down from $139 billion in the same period of 2024.
Musk informed investors that he would “dedicate significantly more time to Tesla” beginning in May. He is expected to conclude his role at DOGE by May 30, adhering to the 130-day limit imposed on his service as a special government employee.
Concerns have persisted regarding the demands of the Musk era. In addition to Tesla, he manages four other companies, including the space exploration firm SpaceX and the social media platform X, formerly Twitter.
On Thursday, Musk criticized the Wall Street Journal report on X, stating: “It is an ethical violation that @WSJ deliberately publishes false reports and fails to present a clear denial from Tesla’s board beforehand!”
Meta’s content moderation board decided that implementing a complete ban on pro-Palestinian slogans would hinder freedom of speech. They supported the company’s choice to allow posts on Facebook that include the phrase “from the river to the sea.”
The oversight committee examined three instances of Facebook posts featuring the phrase “from the river to the sea” and determined that they did not break Meta’s rules against hate speech or incitement. They argued that a universal ban on the phrase would suppress political speech in an unacceptable manner.
In a decision endorsed by 21 members, the committee upheld Meta’s original decision to keep the content on Facebook, stating that it expressed solidarity with the Palestinian people and did not promote violence or exclusion.
The committee, whose content judgments are binding, mentioned that the phrase has various interpretations and can be used with different intentions. While it could be seen as promoting anti-Semitism and the rejection of Israel, it could also be interpreted as a show of support for the Palestinians.
The majority of the committee stated that the use of the phrase by Hamas, although banned from Meta’s platform and considered a terrorist organization by the UK and the US, does not automatically make the phrase violent or hateful.
However, a minority within the committee argued that as the phrase appeared in Hamas’s 2017 charter, its use in the post could be construed as praising the banned group, particularly following an attack by Hamas. The phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” refers to the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Opponents of the slogan claim it advocates for the elimination of Israel, while proponents like Palestinian-American author Yousef Munayyer argue it supports the idea of Palestinians living freely and equally in their homeland.
The ruling pointed out that due to the phrase’s multiple meanings, enforcing a blanket ban, removal of content, or using the phrase as a basis for review would impinge on protected political speech.
In one of the cases, a user responded to a video with the hashtag “FromTheRiverToTheSea,” which garnered 3,000 views. In another case, the phrase “Palestine will be free” was paired with an image of a floating watermelon slice, viewed 8 million times.
The third case involved a post by a Canadian community organization condemning “Zionist Israeli occupiers,” but had fewer than 1,000 views.
A Meta spokesperson, overseeing platforms like Instagram and Threads, remarked: “We appreciate the oversight committee’s evaluation of our policies. While our guidelines prioritize safety, we acknowledge the global complexities at play and regularly seek counsel from external experts, including our oversight committee.”
I
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, it forced Krista Castro and Bryan Shin to rethink their lives. The couple, an animation director and programmer, had been working for major studios but wanted to create their own games. They decided to quit their jobs in 2021 and form A cozy gaming companion. They also became parents around the same time.
They set a goal to create a game in two years. By 2023, they had completed Fear the Spotlight, a ’90s-style horror adventure game. Although it received positive reviews on Steam, they struggled to market it and considered moving on. Then, Blumhouse, the successful horror film production company, approached them.
Blumhouse saw potential in Fear the Spotlight and offered to help. The couple was thrilled to collaborate with them as they shared a passion for horror. Together, they worked on an expanded version of the game set to release soon.
Fear the Spotlight captures the essence of ’90s horror with its atmospheric design and slow pace. Inspired by classic horror games and movies, the game aims to appeal to all horror enthusiasts, even those not typically into gaming.
The couple’s love for horror shines through in the game, incorporating elements from various horror media. With Blumhouse’s support, they look forward to sharing their vision with a wider audience.
Amid regulator scrutiny over big tech companies’ relationships with artificial intelligence startups, Microsoft is stepping down from its observer role on OpenAI’s board, and Apple will no longer appoint executives to similar positions.
Microsoft, the primary funder of ChatGPT developer, announced its resignation in a letter to the startup, as reported by the Financial Times. The company stated that the resignation, as a mere observer with no voting rights on board decisions, is effective immediately.
Microsoft highlighted the progress made by the new OpenAI board post the eventful departure and reinstatement of CEO Sam Altman last year. The company mentioned that OpenAI is heading in the right direction by emphasizing safety and nurturing a positive work culture.
“Considering these developments, we feel that our limited observer role is no longer essential,” stated Microsoft, which has invested $13 billion (£10.2 billion) in OpenAI.
However, Microsoft reportedly believed that its observer role raised concerns among competition regulators. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority is reviewing whether the deal equated to an “acquisition of control,” while the US Federal Trade Commission is also investigating View Partnerships.
While the European Commission opted out of a formal merger review regarding Microsoft’s investment in OpenAI, it is examining exclusivity clauses in the contract between the two entities.
An OpenAI spokesperson mentioned that the startup is adopting a new strategy to engage key partners like Microsoft, Apple, and other investors on a regular basis to strengthen alignment on safety and security.
As part of this new approach, OpenAI will no longer have an observer on the board, meaning Apple will also not have a similar role. Reports had surfaced earlier this month about Apple intending to include App Store head Phil Schiller on its board, but no comment has been received from Apple.
Regulatory scrutiny has intensified on investments in AI startups. The FTC is investigating OpenAI and Microsoft, along with Anthropic, the creator of the Claude chatbot, and their collaborations with tech giants Google and Amazon. In the UK, the CMA is looking into Amazon’s partnership with Anthropic, as well as Microsoft’s ties with Mistral and Inflection AI.
Alex Hafner, a partner at British law firm Fladgate, indicated that Microsoft’s decision seemed to be impacted by the regulatory landscape.
“It’s evident that regulators are closely monitoring the intricate relationships between big tech firms and AI providers, prompting Microsoft and others to rethink how they structure these arrangements in the future,” he commented.
ohThe rational view on the Elon Musk compensation issue is that Tesla shareholders should stick to their guns and re-approve his astronomical $56 billion compensation, sending a message to the interventionist Delaware judge who struck down the 2018 plan that they are more than capable of making their own decisions.
Broadly speaking, that’s the stance taken by Baillie Gifford, an early and large investor in electric-car companies. “When we agreed the compensation package with Tesla in 2018, we were doing it because we had set ambitious targets that, if met, would deliver huge returns for shareholders,” says Tom Slater, manager of FTSE 100 Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust. He told the Financial Times “Since we agreed to this, we believe we should pay it,” he said last month. Certainly, this statement has the virtue of consistency: we know what we voted for, and a deal is a deal.
Similarly, no one is likely to complain that Norway’s sovereign wealth fund will vote in opposition on Thursday, just as it did in 2018. The fund opposed the plan then, and sees no reason to change its view just because Tesla’s shares have since soared, triggering a record payout to Musk before a Delaware court stepped in.
So the reapproval vote would produce a similar result to the original 73% majority. The shareholder register has changed over the years, but not by much. If anything, retail investors, who make up almost 40% of the stock, seem to have become even more enamoured with Musk lately. And if the majority is indeed secured, that would be the end of the matter and we wouldn’t have to go to court again.
But before this furor fades from the headlines, there’s the small matter of what Delaware Judge Katherine McCormick actually said. Her 200-page ruling January. Read in its entirety, the impression one gets is that Tesla’s 2018 board is a collection of casualties too subservient to its boss to even implement a semi-robust process for setting his incentives.
No one disputes that Tesla’s stock price would have needed to undergo a minor miracle to realize Musk’s full prize money, which had to top $650 billion by 2028, compared with a valuation of around $50 billion (it actually took just three years to achieve that goal). Rather, the problem was the people Tesla appointed to negotiate with Musk and determine a fair prize.
As the judge noted, lead director Ira Ellen Price had a 15-year business relationship with Musk. Another member of the working group, Antonio Gracias, vacationed with Musk’s family. A third, Musk’s former divorce lawyer and company general counsel Todd Maron, “broke down in tears in praise of Musk during testimony.” McCormick concluded that the adjudication process was “deeply flawed” and that the terms were “not entirely fair” to all shareholders. In short, Musk said what he wanted and received minimal backlash.
In theory, Tesla’s board had some powerful cards to play. At the time, Musk owned just over a fifth of Tesla’s stock (before he sold some to fund his Twitter antics), so he couldn’t have lacked the appetite to pursue a goal of “transformative” growth. Even without a plan, every $50 billion increase in Tesla’s market cap was worth $10 billion to Musk. This negotiating point appears to have been ignored.
If Musk asked for a larger stake to keep him focused on Tesla and not on his personal company, would the supposedly independent directors go along with it? Probably.
So even if we accept that contracts, even the obvious excesses, should be honored, the lack of soul-searching in Tesla’s boardroom is astonishing. The lesson to be learned from this is that this is a public company, and the job involves more than being a cheerleader for Elon Musk’s fan club.
Meta’s oversight board determined that a Facebook video falsely alleging that U.S. President Joe Biden is a pedophile did not violate the company’s current rules, but expressed that the rules were “disjointed”. It was acknowledged that the focus is too narrow on AI-generated content.
The board, which is funded by Facebook’s parent company Meta but operates independently, took on the Biden video case in October after receiving user complaints about a doctored seven-second video of the president.
The board ruled that under current policies, the misleading altered video would only be prohibited if it was created by artificial intelligence or made to appear to say words that were not actually said. Therefore, Meta was correct in continuing to publish the video.
This ruling is the first to criticize Meta’s policies against “manipulated media” amidst concerns about the potential use of new AI technology to influence upcoming elections.
The board stated that the policy “lacks a convincing justification, is disjointed and confusing to users, and does not clearly articulate the harms it seeks to prevent.” It suggested updating the policy to cover both audio and video content, and to apply a label indicating that it has been manipulated, regardless of whether AI is used.
It did not require the policy to apply to photos, as doing so could make enforcement too difficult at Meta’s scale.
Meta, which also owns Instagram and WhatsApp, informed the board that it plans to update its policies to address new and increasingly realistic advances in AI, according to the ruling.
The video on Facebook is a manipulated version of real footage of Biden exchanging “I voted” stickers with his granddaughter and kissing her on the cheek during the 2022 US midterm elections.
The board noted that non-AI modified content is “more prevalent and not necessarily less misleading” than content generated by AI tools.
It recommended that enforcement should involve applying labels to content, rather than Meta’s current approach of removing posts from the platform.
The company announced that it is reviewing the ruling and will respond publicly within 60 days.
OpenAI is expanding its internal safety processes to prevent harmful AI threats. The new “Safety Advisory Group” will sit above the technical team and will make recommendations to management, with the board having a veto right, but of course whether or not they actually exercise it is entirely up to them. This is a problem.
There is usually no need to report on the details of such policies. In reality, the flow of functions and responsibilities is unclear, and many meetings take place behind closed doors, with little visibility to outsiders. Perhaps this is the case, but given recent leadership struggles and the evolving AI risk debate, it’s important to consider how the world’s leading AI development companies are approaching safety considerations. there is.
new document and blog postOpenAI is discussing its latest “preparation framework,” but this framework is based on two of the most “decelerationist” members of the board, Ilya Satskeva (whose role has changed somewhat and is still with the company). After the reorganization in November when Helen was removed, Toner seems to have been slightly remodeled (completely gone).
The main purpose of the update appears to be to provide a clear path for identifying “catastrophic” risks inherent in models under development, analyzing them, and deciding how to deal with them. They define it as:
A catastrophic risk is a risk that could result in hundreds of billions of dollars in economic damage or serious harm or death to a large number of individuals. This includes, but is not limited to, existential risks.
(Existential risks are of the “rise of the machines” type.)
Production models are managed by the “Safety Systems” team. This is for example against organized abuse of ChatGPT, which can be mitigated through API limits and adjustments. Frontier models under development are joined by a “preparation” team that attempts to identify and quantify risks before the model is released. And then there’s the “superalignment” team, working on theoretical guide rails for a “superintelligent” model, but I don’t know if we’re anywhere near that.
The first two categories are real, not fictional, and have relatively easy-to-understand rubrics. Their team focuses on cyber security, “persuasion” (e.g. disinformation), model autonomy (i.e. acting on its own), CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear threats, e.g. novel pathogens), We evaluate each model based on four risk categories: ).
Various mitigation measures are envisaged. For example, we might reasonably refrain from explaining the manufacturing process for napalm or pipe bombs. If a model is rated as having a “high” risk after considering known mitigations, it cannot be deployed. Additionally, if a model has a “severe” risk, it will not be developed further.
An example of assessing model risk using OpenAI’s rubric.
These risk levels are actually documented in the framework, in case you’re wondering whether they should be left to the discretion of engineers and product managers.
For example, in its most practical cybersecurity section, “increasing operator productivity in critical cyber operational tasks by a certain factor” is a “medium” risk. The high-risk model, on the other hand, would “identify and develop proofs of concept for high-value exploits against hardened targets without human intervention.” Importantly, “the model is able to devise and execute new end-to-end strategies for cyberattacks against hardened targets, given only high-level desired objectives.” Obviously, we don’t want to put it out there (although it could sell for a good amount of money).
I asked OpenAI about how these categories are being defined and refined, and whether new risks like photorealistic fake videos of people fall into “persuasion” or new categories, for example. I asked for details. We will update this post if we receive a response.
Therefore, only medium and high risks are acceptable in any case. However, the people creating these models are not necessarily the best people to evaluate and recommend them. To that end, OpenAI has established a cross-functional safety advisory group at the top of its technical ranks to review the boffin’s report and make recommendations that include a more advanced perspective. The hope is that this will uncover some “unknown unknowns” (so they say), but by their very nature they’ll be pretty hard to catch.
This process requires sending these recommendations to the board and management at the same time. We understand this to mean his CEO Sam Altman, his CTO Mira Murati, and his lieutenants. Management decides whether to ship or refrigerate, but the board can override that decision.
The hope is that this will avoid high-risk products and processes being greenlit without board knowledge or approval, as was rumored to have happened before the big drama. Of course, the result of the above drama is that two of the more critical voices have been sidelined, and some money-minded people who are smart but are not AI experts (Brett Taylor and Larry・Summers) was appointed.
If a panel of experts makes a recommendation and the CEO makes a decision based on that information, will this friendly board really feel empowered to disagree with them and pump the brakes? If so, do we hear about it? Transparency isn’t really addressed, other than OpenAI’s promise to have an independent third party audit it.
Suppose a model is developed that guarantees a “critical” risk category. OpenAI has been unashamedly vocal about this kind of thing in the past. Talking about how powerful your model is that you refuse to release it is great advertising. But if the risk is so real and OpenAI is so concerned about it, is there any guarantee that this will happen? Maybe it’s a bad idea. But it’s not really mentioned either way.
Kenyan e-commerce and fintech platform for mass market consumers copia global appointed John Lazarthe former CEO of Microsoft subsidiary Metaswitch, has joined the company’s board of directors on the back of $20 million in new funding.
Enza Capital, the pan-African venture capital firm co-founded by Lazar in 2019, is one of the larger participants in the Series C extension round, including global private bank LGT, investment firm Goodwell Investments, Also included is the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC). ), German financial services provider DEG, Swiss impact fund Elea, Perivoli Foundation and Sorenson Foundation.
Lazar has extensive experience building and managing businesses. He joined Metaswitch Networks in 1987 as a software engineer and later became Chairman and CEO as the company established its leadership in cloud communications software with investment support from Francisco Partners and Sequoia Capital. I was appointed CEO. Lazar, who resigned from both roles in 2016, four years before Microsoft acquired the company, is also chairman of the UK-based charity Raspberry Pi Foundation, and is an angel investor and investor in the UK and Africa. He is also a mentor to over 40 pre-seed and seed investors. investment.
In a conversation with TechCrunch, Lazar said he has a long-standing professional relationship with the Copia team that has impressed Enza Capital with its fulfillment network over the years and increased digital adoption from consumers. , admitted that this is one of the reasons to support e-commerce in Kenya. Clothes.
According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), personal consumption in Africa is expected to exceed $2 trillion Over the next three years, the continent’s burgeoning middle class will drive this growth. Copia, which has been around for 10 years, targets rural, middle- and low-income African consumers. These consumers enjoy more choice, price, and access to goods and services compared to urban and high-income consumers who use Western-style or African-focused platforms such as Jumia and Takealot. , faces challenges in terms of reliability. Therefore, although this target market may be difficult to find and its wallet size may be small, Copia is approaching it with a hyper-local strategy, reaching a significant number of approximately 750 million people across Africa. We believe there is an opportunity given the collective purchasing power of
Copia leverages its local agent and logistics network to tap into this market. The company boasts a strong network of over 50,000 agents who are small business owners in towns and villages across Kenya and has served over 2 million consumers. Most of these orders executed through Copia’s distributor network are made offline, with customers ordering household goods, electronics, or food products in person at the distributor’s store, via USSD, or by phone. Ta.
However, driven by falling data costs and increasing smartphone penetration and ownership in Kenya (73% of low- and middle-income Kenyan consumers now own a smartphone, down from 10% a decade ago), A 10-year-old e-commerce company recently ran a campaign to digitize its agent network, increasing app usage from 5% to 80% in one year. Copia said in a statement that digitized agents can double their revenue, and by exploring smartphone financing models, they can focus their subsequent digitization efforts on millions of consumers. This will allow companies like M-KOPA to enter a thriving market.
“I have respected this company for a long time and think the conditions are right. E-commerce companies are facing some difficulties at the moment, but a kind of push towards digitalization is a good thing for us. It feels like a tipping point and just changes the game in unit economics and efficiency,” said Mr Lazar, who was awarded a CBE for services. “So when Tracy called us and told us they had this internal round and wanted to bring on additional partners, we were very excited to participate.”
Copia has recorded 100% annual growth over the past few years, with founder and chairman highlighting scale and rapid expansion as key objectives for profitability. tracy turner explained on the same call with TechCrunch. However, as global capital markets have experienced a downturn and investor focus has shifted from models that rely on scale for profitability, to now emphasize the importance of demonstrating sound unit economics. In response, Copia underwent fundamental changes last year.
The e-commerce company has secured more than $120 million in funding since its inception, including a $50 million Series C round in January, but this year it scaled back its expansion plans and implemented significant layoffs. . At least 700 roles will be eliminated. Reduce number of Kenyan employees by 25% July and Closed Uganda operations Similar to three months ago, this move is in line with broader trends seen across industries this year, with many companies considering reducing labor costs as their first strategy when adopting cost-cutting measures. are doing.
“We recognized in the capital markets environment that we did not want to continue operating in Uganda, which is a great market and opportunity. We did not have the funds to make it profitable, so it made sense to hold off there. Then we looked at our Kenyan operations and realized we needed to streamline there as well,” Turner said. “And the fact that our customers have become digital so rapidly, our current shift to a digital focus means we need to change the way we operate in Kenya. So we did this to focus our business on digital relationships with our customers, which is completely different than it was just a year ago.”
Copia’s shift in focus from simply growing sales to achieving profitability in Kenya has helped it minimize losses since new management took over in Q4 2022. It reflects a strategy similar to Jumia’s approach of slowing growth. Both companies face headwinds that call into question the sustainability of B2C electronic services. Commerce takes place in Africa, albeit with different e-commerce models operating. It is worth noting that B2B e-commerce platforms are also grappling with a series of challenges in the market.
Despite the challenges, executives from both e-commerce companies, which have been in business for 10 years, said in separate conversations with TechCrunch that the companies, which now offer financial services alongside e-commerce, are stable. We have unwavering confidence in our ability to achieve the same profitability. They argue that it is only a matter of time before these challenges are overcome and are optimistic about the future profitability of the business. However, both platforms face distinct goals. While Copia strives to achieve profitability in a single market, Kenya, Jumia has to compete across 11 markets.
But Turner said Copia, which will have annual revenue of more than $60 million by the end of 2023, maintains pan-African ambitions despite its focus on making money in Kenya. Point out. The founder and chairman said that once the e-commerce company achieves profitability in the East African market, it plans to expand to 14 other strategically planned countries. “We are keeping our heads down right now and focusing on Kenya and will not look up until we achieve that milestone. We have done a lot of scouting work and are planning where to go next. However, our international expansion plans will take place once we achieve profitability in Kenya,” she said.
As for John, as he said in the interview, three things remain of paramount importance to him now that he has joined the company’s board of directors. These include leveraging the experience and network of technical operators to support talent, providing sales and revenue generation strategies, and acting as a sounding board. To management.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
